I don't claim to be an expert in this stuff but here's a few things I learned about Moloch over the years of studying the deep state:
-
It was worshiped by some ancient people from the Bible and many of the Deep State today.
-
Moloch is accessed when people do adrenochrome and is accompanies by machine elves. They usually offer the human to be part of the deep state cult where they harvest adrenochrome from children in exchange for money, power and Earthly pleasures.
-
Moloch has such bad energy that being in his presence causes insanity. The only way to break the grip this energy has is to realize that one's own mind is capable of filtering out negativity and clearing out the area of bad energy simply by willing it.
This goat headed demon is the head of the Deep State it seems. It's in some other kind of dimension accessed through adrenochrome and psychedelics combined.
Here's an article I ran into saying the Dems worship Moloch:
The word "moloch" comes from the Hebrew word root "mlk". It can be vowelized many different ways, so you'll see it as Molech, Molek, Melek Milcom, Milchcom, or other variations so don't be thrown off by this.
The root "mlk" means "to rule", so "moloch" would mean "ruler" and "Moloch" is often translated as "King". That would be a title rather than a specific name, but in my research I have never seen it applied to any other deity.
Here's a couple of notes for those interested in very deep research:
From Biblical times to this day, "Amalek" is held to be the most dire enemy of the Israelites. No scholar seems to have noticed, but I would suggest this is just another volewization of "mlk" and reference to Moloch. (And yes, I do know that the Zionists ultimately serve Satan. That's how jacked up everything is.)
Also, in the Book of Ezekiel, Yahweh blasts the King of Tyre. If you research that city, you'll find that it's "tutelary deity" was Melqart. A minority of scholars believe this is a corruption of "melek qart", or "King of the City", and I would suggest this is simply Moloch yet again. Can the king be a deity, or a deity be a king? Is there a solution to this apparent conundrum?
It’s all trippy. Baal is the one Zionists worship more. Could be the same entity.
Yes, I believe 100% that they are one and the same. "Baal" is typically translated as "Lord" but also has the connotation of ownership, so also something like "Master". Both of those are generic titles, but I've only seen a couple of instances where "Baal" was used in this generic way.
My working thesis is that this entity was so prevalent for such a long period of time no specification was necessary. If you say "the President" today, 99% of the time it's already clear who you're talking about.
I have researched Baal much more. It was worshipped by half of ancient israel while the other half worshipped Yahwey. Baal means owner. Baal worshipers believed in land ownership and pushed for it. Baal priests were real estate agents. Baal was like one of Lucifer’s top agents. The Baal worshipers got enslaved by Babylon later on.
Are you certain that Baal was only an agent of Lucifer? In the Bible, Baal is often mentioned in conjunction with Nebo. Who was Nebo? More importantly, who was said to be his father?
And indeed, the Baal worshippers went to Bablyon but I'm not so sure they were enslaved. When they were "set free", only 4% came back. And recall it's also when they compiled that wonderful document known as the Babylonian Talmud In any case, who was the tutelary deity of the city of Babylon?
If you have the answers to those questions, another question is: have we mere coincidence on our hands?
Not really. Both "melech" and "baal" were neutral words for any human king or lord. In time a particular form of melech, Moloch, became a name, but melech remained perfectly fine, including in modern Hebrew. On the other hand Baal also became a name, without any untouched revocalization, and so it was largely lost for other purposes.
But the creator was never tied down to a title, and for the most part when the name Yahweh was revealed it worked so well that very few tried to counterfeit it (that's happened more in our era than theirs). Basically either you worship Yahweh, or it doesn't matter what you worship because you're toasted by natural consequences.
Usually comparing consonants would work, but Amalek is really
Amaleq and has a different, foreign root (some suspectEmeq). Moloch, Molech, Molek, Milcom, Milchom are all the same, but melech, melek, melchi are generic words of kingship. Most certainly king and deity are confusable, and continue to be in the present day. The solution is to find the one deity that rules all others and is a reliable source of good and justice (hint: talk to Jesus).It's true that, after the Israelites left Egypt (a phase of the Hyksos Expulsion, 15th dynasty, 1539 BC), they were rapidly beset by, and acceptant of, worshippers of Baal and Moloch claiming to attribute those names to Yahweh. The key to remember is that Yahweh worshippers left no artifacts, but the others left plenty of sex toys and other figurines. The only way we can spot a good city of Yahweh worshippers is the lack of pig bones; and that doesn't help us determine the counts of nomads at all. So you summarize it pretty well as half this half that, because many archaeologists fail to note these points and say all Baal and hardly any Yahweh at all.
Nebo was the Hebrew spelling of Assyrian Nabu as in Nebuchadrezzar and works out to be the same as Thoth, Mercury, and Hermes. Because of identifications, you want to be very sure of your source if it says that Lucifer, Satan, Abaddon or the like are independent; sometimes they're just sockpuppet accounts. If your source is from the spiritual side, remember that they lie. If it's from a human testimony it can be tested.
Anyway, all that was to say the OP is a great opening dossier page and it helps to know who influenced whom when. The symbols and patterns haven't changed much today.
cc: u/Primate98
Yes, absolutely. I came to all his same major conclusions before I'd ever heard of him. I think he is precisely on target.
I might be tempted to say I've gone farther than he did, but I might also guess that he's holding back quite a bit. This area is beyond sensitive to many, many people. Their ideas about the Bible and related topics are not just opinions they hold, they're central to their very identity.
I think you'll find this line of inquiry most fruitful. Once you accept the general hypothesis as a framework, you'll "have your antenna up" and come across more and more evidence for it in research completely unrelated to the hypothesis itself. Over the last few years I've collected what must be thousands of such links.
BTW, don't let the naysayers about Zecharia Sitchin put you off. I've only read a couple of paragraphs of his work and watched a couple of short videos, so none of what I've found is just some sort of regurgitation of his research. We just came to the same conclusions.
As form (life) within flow (inception towards death); one represents temporary resistance (sara) to ongoing velocity (el)...unless ignored (amal). Living within the process of dying demands adaptation; hence struggle to resist dying; while growing life. Ignore that and you soften your form right back to flow.